New World Order - BRIC

[shag]

couldn't have said it better.
Engaging with ASEAN nations offer significant strategic reach to India and for China it represents the region through which most of its supplies come and a natural choke point for any adversary(straits of malacca etc.). Besides combined it is a significantly big market for either country, this is the place where the ASEAN forum itself gains its importance (presenting a unified economic block).

 

[shag]

That day is not faraway when you can ship goods and travel people from India all the way to EU through China.

I don't understand that one! Why in the world do you imagine someone in India would send people or goods to EU through China?

 

[Sampanviking]

User 'shag' and 'roberto'; lets be very clear, SCO is NOT a 'military alliance' like NATO. It is a common platform for a group of nations to address common issues from economics to security. That does not automatically imply a 'military alliance'.

Absolutely right. I actually think it is best described an early form EU with Oil and Gas playing the role of Coal and Steel.

To user Shag, I must ask why you have such antipathy towards it and indeed regard the PRC as a competitor than can only be resisted? Personally I see so few areas of Strategic Competition as to make such a stance seem utterly bizarre. Such strategic friction as exists in the relationship come from this antipathy and not vice-versa.

 

[roberto]

:shudder Uugghhh...Sometimes I feel many people outside Asean citizens tend to see because there's Asean in Southeast Asia..than all the conditions for SEA countries can be group to one front...

Asean consists from pariah like Myanmar (that's really dependent to China)..and Country like Singapore which is more or less more incline on US club , Vietnam which still have large suspiscions with it's northern Giant neighbours, and largest SEA country my own Indonesia which still do not know which way to go..

China need SEA since this is 500 mio market, we need China for her Cheaps but relatively competitive products. Both can have resources from other hand, but both SEA and China also know they need each other, which China try hard to erlarged it's influences in SEA, and SEA's try hard to balances it with other powers.

Not a simple black and white situations.

It does not matter whether your Singapore or Myanamar or Indonesia. Your replaceble. For example China can give preferential treatment to Taiwan/SKorea electronic exports and completely slapped ban on Singapore exports. U have now where else to go to coverup the decline. For country to be SuperPower. It needs to have very deep pockets and can play smaller countries against each other.
Hong Kong/China are 20% combined for Singapore. Decline will not be 20% but alot moret than that. Once losses starts it has multiplier effect on whole economy. Bankrupt nations cannot pursue R&D for too long nor can compete based on subsidies in export markets.

Singapore (05/09)
Major markets--Malaysia (12.1%), Indonesia (10.6%), Hong Kong (10.4%), EU (10.2%), China (9.2%), United States (7.0%), and Japan (4.9%).

 

[roberto]

I don't understand that one! Why in the world do you imagine someone in India would send people or goods to EU through China?

shortest of way of going by Air to China/Russia/Central Asia from India is through China.
Shortest way of importing and exporting by rail/road from EU to India is through China. and once trade expands. this routes can be further expanded. The importance of Sea lanes will be decreasing.

 

[Ananda]

It does not matter whether your Singapore or Myanamar or Indonesia. Your replaceble. .

Everybody is replaceble in this globalize economy. Is just that the bigger your resources the harder you become to be replaced. I just critize your point of view as seeing all SEA countries as one bucket.

 

[shag]

shortest of way of going by Air to China/Russia/Central Asia from India is through China.
Shortest way of importing and exporting by rail/road from EU to India is through China.

You should really look at a map some time.

@Sampanviking
I don't regard PRC as a competitor or ally nor do I have any antipathy towards it. My assessment is solely based on what I predict as the future course India will take. I think it will be based on what serves its interests best. We have often been know to ignore our interests for ideology in past but recently change can be seen and there is lot of realism in Indian politics compared to the ideology during the time of panchsheel etc.
My opinion is also based on the conflict of interests I stated in my earlier posts. Of course there are lot of common objectives that can be achieved through co-operation as well, there has been some visible progress on those fronts.
Predictions get proven wrong all the time. I hope India and China find some common ground based on mutual respect. But I don't base what I state here on what I wish to see happening, just the current realities.

 

[roberto]

Everybody is replaceble in this globalize economy. Is just that the bigger your resources the harder you become to be replaced. I just critize your point of view as seeing all SEA countries as one bucket.

what does it matter if country is as large as Indonesia or as small as Singapore. Both are replaceable pretty easily. When u have such huge savings like China. It is financial Nuke on rest of world.

 

[Ananda]

:

what does it matter if country is as large as Indonesia or as small as Singapore. Both are replaceable pretty easily. When u have such huge savings like China. It is financial Nuke on rest of world.

You're begin this SEA/Asean - China debate on talking that all Asean/Sea countries all dependant with China. I said you're oversimplified things.
I already put the arguments that not all SEA countries have same dependency (If you insists on that) with China.

Country like Indonesia for instances are more dependent with Japan or US as they are our biggest export partners and not China. The amount of China investments in Indonesia are miniscule compare to what Japan, South Koreans or evan Taiwan has invested in here. Let Alone compares to British and US investments.
Not all Sea/Asean countries are overly depandent with export. Country like Indonesia which export only have 25% on GDP and more dependent on her own domestic markets to grow. As matter affact last quarter we still grow 4.4% with everybody else in the region except China, India and perhaps Vietnam show negative grows.

You should learn more on one region before saying that all countries in the regions are Chinese lackeys because they're wholly dependent with China. That's what I critize as put it gently laughable

To counter the arguments with saying all Asean countries are much smaller and weaker than China is completely outside the issue. Nobody can argue that China is more powerfull than whole Asean/Sea countries put together. But saying because we're weaker than we are all replacebles on China's eyes is simply Childish.

Again some countries in Asean/Sea is not dependent on any way toward China, and It can replaced China if they want to.
Some of us even see China's is competitors in trade due to many of her products competing with our products in the market.

China influences in Asean/Sea is not dominant for all of us. I can say that for Indonesia case, and perhaps other Sea members in the forum can say for their own countries perspective what China really worth for them.
China can replace us for the market but some of us also can 'easily' replaces China with others for sources of products or investments.

 

[roberto]

:

You're begin this SEA/Asean - China debate on talking that all Asean/Sea countries all dependant with China. I said you're oversimplified things.
I already put the arguments that not all SEA countries have same dependency (If you insists on that) with China.

Country like Indonesia for instances are more dependent with Japan or US as they are our biggest export partners and not China. The amount of China investments in Indonesia are miniscule compare to what Japan, South Koreans or evan Taiwan has invested in here. Let Alone compares to British and US investments.

It does not matter what Chinese investments in Indonesia are. The fact of matter is Your biggest trading partners Japan/US exports are completely on China. Where do u think GM Buicks are the most successful. China has the choice of substituting Bucks and Toyota with VW/Hyundai for common masses but Japan/US does not have option of selling large scale Toyota/Honda/GM anywhere else. China can force Japan/US for not allowing Indonesia exports and replacing it with Chinese if it wants to play hardball with Indonesia. Developing modern automobile with fuel efficiency and safety features required billions of investments. and it can only be recovered when you have mor than 10 millions Autos of domestic market. I am not even going into Truck market. This just one example in One Industry. I am not even going into Solar panels/Turbines/Chip Foundaries.

Not all Sea/Asean countries are overly depandent with export. Country like Indonesia which export only have 25% on GDP and more dependent on her own domestic markets to grow. As matter affact last quarter we still grow 4.4% with everybody else in the region except China, India and perhaps Vietnam show negative grows.

GDP is very questionable and obsolete measure of economc strenght. U dont have any figures for amount of debt created to produce 4.4% GDP growth. For example Russia has 10 years of budget Surpluses from Past. China has atleast 4 years of budget surpluses. They can afford deficit financing for years to come and create artificial GDP growth.

You should learn more on one region before saying that all countries in the regions are Chinese lackeys because they're wholly dependent with China. That's what I critize as put it gently laughable

I dont need to learn more about region. G-2/BRIC idea is enough indication who is the bank of the World.

To counter the arguments with saying all Asean countries are much smaller and weaker than China is completely outside the issue. Nobody can argue that China is more powerfull than whole Asean/Sea countries put together. But saying because we're weaker than we are all replacebles on China's eyes is simply Childish.

Sure thats ur thinking that Asean are not dependent on China. Think globally u will get the answer.

Again some countries in Asean/Sea is not dependent on any way toward China, and It can replaced China if they want to.
Some of us even see China's is competitors in trade due to many of her products competing with our products in the market.

China influences in Asean/Sea is not dominant for all of us. I can say that for Indonesia case, and perhaps other Sea members in the forum can say for their own countries perspective what China really worth for them.
China can replace us for the market but some of us also can 'easily' replaces China with others for sources of products or investments.

It is not Chinese products in Asean countries but what China can do in US/Japan/SKorea/Russia/EU/Middleast market if it chose to play hard ball.
Just look at Iran. how China is playing persians against Arab can getting big projects from both of them. It can surely Ask these countries to ban Asean exports for exchange of China protection.

 

[Ananda]

China can force Japan/US for not allowing Indonesia exports and replacing it with Chinese if it wants to play hardball with Indonesia.

Oww Kid, you do have grand illusion on China strength..China can Force US and Japan ??
God..just because China now posses big chunk of US originated bonds, does not mean it's also means US now under Chinese thumbs..:haha
So now we're moving from Asean under Chinese Thumbs to Japan and US under Chinse Thumbs..

GDP is very questionable and obsolete measure of economc strenght. U dont have any figures for amount of debt created to produce 4.4% GDP growth. For example Russia has 10 years of budget Surpluses from Past. China has atleast 4 years of budget surpluses. They can afford deficit financing for years to come and create artificial GDP growth.

True GDP is not the exact determining factor in caclculating one's country growth,l but there's a big differences between Budget Surpluses and GDP. Afterall you do realize Chinse strength coming from her strong GDP growth on this last decades or so..

I

dont need to learn more about region. G-2/BRIC idea is enough indication who is the bank of the World.

You do realize you like Bush that think that world working on one assumption only right :hehe
BRIC is just an idea that comming from a bunch of consultancy firm and investments banks on grouping High Potential countries. Very far fetch in telling everybody that this four now bankrolling most of the Global economy...
Afterall the idea than scoop by those four countries leaders to gather prestise on...attracting the money from where the money STILL really lies...The OECD countries..

Sure thats ur thinking that Asean are not dependent on China. Think globally u will get the answer.

You put the answer from my mouth, please think globally but always try to understand the mechanics on World and regional business first before you say that China rules the world economy..

It is not Chinese products in Asean countries but what China can do in US/Japan/SKorea/Russia/EU/Middleast market if it chose to play hard ball.
Just look at Iran. how China is playing persians against Arab can getting big projects from both of them. It can surely Ask these countries to ban Asean exports for exchange of China protection.

Ooo god...well let it make it simple...If Chinese are such powerfull nation that's now replacing US as Superpower..why in the heck She just not absorb Taiwan now..???
International Business not always hand in hand with global politics kiddo...Not always..It's can run diffrent mechanics that's not related with the bravado on the political sides.
Nobody in this world have enough power to ask ANY nations it's choose to ban the export from ANY other nations that's she does not like..
You do realize on the existances on WTO right..?? Or you just simply said that WTO is meaningless and now it's also under Chinese Thumbs..??

 

[mysterious]

Ooo god...well let it make it simple...If Chinese are such powerfull nation that's now replacing US as Superpower..why in the heck She just not absorb Taiwan now..??? International Business not always hand in hand with global politics kiddo...Not always..It's can run diffrent mechanics that's not related with the bravado on the political sides. Nobody in this world have enough power to ask ANY nations it's choose to ban the export from ANY other nations that's she does not like..You do realize on the existances on WTO right..?? Or you just simply said that WTO is meaningless and now it's also under Chinese Thumbs..??

Ignoring your lack of discussion etiquette & deliberate disrespecting other users; your naive understanding of how big-powers play the 'game' is quite appalling to say the least.

China is a rising superpower; it cannot overthrow US hegemony in one night. Taking over Taiwan is no big deal for China if it commits itself to it. The reason that prevents Chinese from doing so is their belief in the rise of a 'peaceful' China which does not [for now atleast] become too confrontational and put it on some collision course with the United States. The United States own rise to superpower status was not all that different in essence.

Having said that, the writing is on the wall already. Ofcourse United States' clout won't disappear over night, but China has started to assert itself and it is not so much as Washington as Beijing that figures in pulling the strings on global affairs. Lets not forget the massive Chinese holdings in the U.S and the rising frequency of Chinese calls to drop the U.S dollar as the international monetary medium.

 

[OPSSG]

...your naive understanding of how big-powers play the 'game' is quite appalling to say the least.

mysterious, Ananda has his own world view that is different from yours. Just as my world view is different from his. Just keep in mind that English is a 2nd language for Ananda - so it not difficult to misunderstand his point of view.

China is a rising superpower; it cannot overthrow US hegemony in one night.

I share your point of view that in great power terms the US is in elegant decline. IMHO, China is a rising regional power with the potential to be a superpower. However, there is no guarantee that they will succeed to become a superpower (the way the US and USSR were, within the bi-polar constructs of the Cold War).

I think that many China observers either over-estimate China's ability or underplay the genuine currents of change taking place at break neck pace in China. So there is quite a wide range of opinions on how to read China.

Taking over Taiwan is no big deal for China if it commits itself to it.

I respectfully disagree with your point of view. BTW, I've made multiple trips to the Republic of China (or Taiwan) and had a chance to be impressed by Taiwan's air force, its indigenous defence fighter (IDF) (see 27 June 2009, Open House Pixs) and multiple layers of coastal defences. China could always nuke Taiwan to destroy the island - but a conventional invasion is another matter. That is why China has traditionally focused on an anti-access strategy (Rand, 2007) rather than invasion.

IMHO, it was impossible in the 1980s, 1990s and even early 2000s for China to successfully invade Taiwan. With the current pace of China's military modernization, there is some US concern about Taiwan's capability to defend itself. However, I'm of the view that currently China cannot successfully invade Taiwan. China will still need a decade or two of military modernization for that to be self evident. China's current modernisation efforts are impressive (see chart on a select list of countries with the largest military budgets) but still has teething problems - such as the loss of 70 PLAN submariners in 2003.

In your current analysis, you have neglected to take into account the Taiwan Relations Act and the impact of US arms sales to Taiwan to enable Taiwan to level the playing field.

The reason that prevents Chinese from doing so is their belief in the rise of a 'peaceful' China which does not [for now at least] become too confrontational and put it on some collision course with the United States. The United States own rise to superpower status was not all that different in essence.

Let me cite some statistics* to highlight the dark side of China's rise.

(i) China has a population of 1.3 billion of which 700 million people still live on less than US$2 a day.

(ii) China has a capable central government and there are 45 million officials in China. However, only 2% of these officials belong to the central authorities. China's weakness (if you can call it that) is that at the regional authority level. The central authority does not know what the regional authorities are really doing. It is at this level where the allegations of corruption most often appear.

(iii) In 2005, there were 87,000 instances of mass unrest, indicating that there are rising levels of dissatisfaction by their own population. I believe that this number would have risen after the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. It should be noted that thousands of school children died due to shoddy construction in the aftermath of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. In Mianyang City, 7 schools collapsed, burying at least 1,700 people. At least 7,000 school buildings in Sichuan Province collapsed. Another 700 students were buried in a school in Hanwang. At least 600 students and staff died at Juyuan Elementary School. Up to 1,300 children and teachers died at Beichuan Middle School.​

While the above data provided is not definitive of China's potential, does China deserve to be called a superpower? IMO, like many China watchers, you would not call China a superpower now, but this ONLY begs the question of WHEN (China will be a superpower) for the China watchers.

IMHO, at this moment I would not ask WHEN China will become a superpower - rather I would ask IF China can become one. I just feel that the data to enable us to make a judgment call is too incomplete at the moment - for us to rush to make that call.

Having said that, the writing is on the wall already. Of course United States' clout won't disappear over night, but China has started to assert itself and it is not so much as Washington as Beijing that figures in pulling the strings on global affairs. Lets not forget the massive Chinese holdings in the U.S and the rising frequency of Chinese calls to drop the U.S dollar as the international monetary medium.

Let me put it this way: When a business own a bank a million dollars and a recession comes, the business has a problem. When that business owes the bank a trillion dollars, the bank has a problem.

----------
*Footnote: I'm not going to bother to cite various data sources here.

 

[shag]

@roberto
Saying allying with a country is unimportant just because it is small and has a smaller percentage of share in the world economy is very naive. Myanmar maybe irrelevant economically and China maybe able to punish it, but that will only open room for India to fill in that gap and take over, what is now a chinese sphere of influence. That's part of the reason why China is making all the friendly gestures and concessions to its neighbours, Alienating any country is very costly and will only reduce the clout of a nation, and if the country is in your backyard, it will give your rivals opportunity to come and set themselves up right at your doorstep.
So I respectfully disagree with your point 'that ASEAN is replaceable or unimportant'.

 

[Ananda]

mysterious;177314Ignoring your lack of discussion etiquette & deliberate disrespecting other users; your naive understanding of how big-powers play the 'game' is quite appalling to say the least

Sorry Mysterious, infact I only answered and pointing out that overestimating China capabilities and power on influencing world order now is the misunderstanding on how the world power being played.

China is a rising superpower; it cannot overthrow US hegemony in one night.

Again that's what I'm pointing out, China at this moment is High POTENTIAL country that can be a rival for US 'SOMEDAY'...that someday means not now, and thus China at this moment is not in possition on dictacting any countries that she's choosing.
Remember my responds above originally responding on a claim that all SEA/ASEAN countries basically under Chinese dominations SIMPLY because China has more power than the wholle Asean.
Asean can be replaceable...so does China can also be replaceble. No Products made by China can not be sourced from somewhere else. It just the matter it's more eficient or not.
People now sourcing more to China due to efficiency and affordability issues, not because it can only build by China.

Lets not forget the massive Chinese holdings in the U.S and the rising frequency of Chinese calls to drop the U.S dollar as the international monetary medium.

I'm not forgetting and Already mentioned on my respond before. But again simply holding large amount of US Bonds..does not mean it can Forced US to do what China wishes. Replacing US $ as global currencies need culmulative efforts by multiple countries.
But again it does not mean that Chinese Ren that will come out as USD replacements...seeing now JP Yen and Euro's have more potentials than Chinese Ren as counterweight for USD.

 

[shag]

I'm not forgetting and Already mentioned on my respond before. But again simply holding large amount of US Bonds..does not mean it can Forced US to do what China wishes.

@Ananda
China controls 1T in US Bonds.
So, does Japan - a simliar amount. Who controls whom in that scenario is still not resolved. Getting off this drug of fiscal deficits is not out of reach for the US and it has been done less than a decade back and can be done again. The whole fact has been bloated out to mean more than it should.

 

[mysterious]

I share your point of view that in great power terms the US is in elegant decline. IMHO, China is a rising regional power with the potential to be a superpower. However, there is no guarantee that they will succeed to become a superpower (the way the US and USSR were, within the bi-polar constructs of the Cold War).

Well ofcourse nothing is 'certain'. One can only make educated predictions. Hardly anyone predicted that the Soviet Union would collapse the way it did and fewer still, that the United States would one day be the sole superpower of the world.

You could say India is a rising regional power but putting China in the same catagory as India would be a folly. China is at the very least 25yrs ahead of India overall, is already an established power in the region.

I respectfully disagree with your point of view. BTW, I've made multiple trips to the Republic of China (or Taiwan) and had a chance to be impressed by Taiwan's air force, its indigenous defence fighter (IDF) (see 27 June 2009, Open House Pixs) and multiple layers of coastal defences. China could always nuke Taiwan to destroy the island - but a conventional invasion is another matter. That is why China has traditionally focused on an anti-access strategy (Rand, 2007) rather than invasion.

IMHO, it was impossible in the 1980s, 1990s and even early 2000s for China to successfully invade Taiwan. With the current pace of China's military modernization, there is some US concern about Taiwan's capability to defend itself. However, I'm of the view that currently China cannot successfully invade Taiwan. China will still need a decade or two of military modernization for that to be self evident. China's current modernisation efforts are impressive (see chart on a select list of countries with the largest military budgets) but still has teething problems - such as the loss of 70 PLAN submariners in 2003.

In your current analysis, you have neglected to take into account the Taiwan Relations Act and the impact of US arms sales to Taiwan to enable Taiwan to level the playing field.

Yes, I was trying to keep my response brief; hence why no mention of things you point out. Lets face it, Taiwan, just like Israel is kept artifically afloat by U.S tax payers in the name of national security [not that they choose to].

Let me cite some statistics* to highlight the dark side of China's rise.

(i) China has a population of 1.3 billion of which 700 million people still live on less than US$2 a day.

(ii) China has a capable central government and there are 45 million officials in China. However, only 2% of these officials belong to the central authorities. China's weakness (if you can call it that) is that at the regional authority level. The central authority does not know what the regional authorities are really doing. It is at this level where the allegations of corruption most often appear.

(iii) In 2005, there were 87,000 instances of mass unrest, indicating that there are rising levels of dissatisfaction by their own population. I believe that this number would have risen after the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. It should be noted that thousands of school children died due to shoddy construction in the aftermath of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. In Mianyang City, 7 schools collapsed, burying at least 1,700 people. At least 7,000 school buildings in Sichuan Province collapsed. Another 700 students were buried in a school in Hanwang. At least 600 students and staff died at Juyuan Elementary School. Up to 1,300 children and teachers died at Beichuan Middle School.
​

While the above data provided is not definitive of China's potential, does China deserve to be called a superpower? IMO, like many China watchers, you would not call China a superpower now, but this ONLY begs the question of WHEN (China will be a superpower) for the China watchers.

IMHO, at this moment I would not ask WHEN China will become a superpower - rather I would ask IF China can become one. I just feel that the data to enable us to make a judgment call is too incomplete at the moment - for us to rush to make that call.

I approached the topic from a foreign-relations stand point, not petty domestic politics. All countries have domestic unrest. The United States is the most privately armed country; with more guns in the hands of private citizens than any other country. So does that mean, we should start predicting a meltdown of law & order? [not to forget that much of Southern United States is a safe haven for drug cartels, transnational mafias, etc] Point is, states have a way of exercising authority & legitimizing it given their domestic situation.

 

[OPSSG]

You could say India is a rising regional power but putting China in the same category as India would be a folly. China is at the very least 25yrs ahead of India overall, is already an established power in the region.

Let me start by saying, as usual, it is a pleasure to read and respond to your posts. And I would like to note for the record that I did not attempt to compare China with India in my prior post (and hence could not have put China in the same category as India) - I'm only discussing India now because you brought it up.

I would agree that China is ahead of India in economic development and regional influence. I believe we are broadly in agreement on this point.

Over the last 25 years, China has developed rapidly in part due to the direction set by the CCP and the relatively capable central government. OTOH, thanks to global outsourcing trends and the private sector, India's economy had developed despite of it's relatively incompetent government (as compared to China).

Yes, I was trying to keep my response brief; hence why no mention of things you point out. Lets face it, Taiwan, just like Israel is kept artificially afloat by U.S tax payers in the name of national security [not that they choose to].

Let's not bring Israel into a BRIC discussion.

I have you at a sight disadvantage in any discussion on Taiwan and China as I have traveled to multiple cities in both. Further, I can speak the local language/dialects, have local contacts and have access to their respective local language news.

You are wrong about Taiwan needing US aid (or the US taxpayers keeping Taiwan afloat) unless you are repeating China's anti-US propaganda points unintentionally. This is because China inaccurately labels any US arms sale to Taiwan as 'military aid' (which arises as an accuracy of translation issue). For China to label US arms sales as military aid is not an accurate description. According to the US State department:

"Taiwan has transformed itself from a recipient of U.S. aid in the 1950s and early 1960s to an aid donor and major foreign investor, especially in Asia. Taiwan is now a creditor economy, holding the world's fourth-largest stock of foreign exchange reserves ($294 billion as of Feb. 2009). "​

Clearly, the Taiwanese know that US companies make money from arms sales to Taiwan (without the need for US government subsidies). And this is a political issue in Taiwanese domestic politics (I know this because I occasionally watch Taiwanese news broadcasts) - and the Taiwanese public occasionally questions the appropriateness of the US weapons systems sold to Taiwan.

I approached the topic from a foreign-relations stand point, not petty domestic politics. All countries have domestic unrest. The United States is the most privately armed country; with more guns in the hands of private citizens than any other country. So does that mean, we should start predicting a meltdown of law & order? [not to forget that much of Southern United States is a safe haven for drug cartels, transnational mafias, etc] Point is, states have a way of exercising authority & legitimizing it given their domestic situation.

I can understand your point and I believe you have understood the earlier point I was driving at. As such, I do not wish to continue the discussion on China's domestic politics or begin a discussion on the US - as it does not add to our current BRIC discussion.

 

[Ananda]

@Ananda
China controls 1T in US Bonds.
So, does Japan - a simliar amount. Who controls whom in that scenario is still not resolved. Getting off this drug of fiscal deficits is not out of reach for the US and it has been done less than a decade back and can be done again. The whole fact has been bloated out to mean more than it should.

That's my point Shag..This BRIC grouping originally created by bunch of investment bankers and consultancy groups to justify their investment strategies in the market and try to promote their BRIC funds.
The idea than scoop up by the leaders of those respective four nations to gather prestige again for attracting business and providing added cloud in the international arena.

How much it is really translated to real international capabilities especially in business are much debated, and definetelly overestimated by some analyst and global business watchers.

 

[Firn]

The moniker BRIC was as Ananda pointed out invented to steer the interest of investors to this potentially high-yield financial markets. As a matter of fact they performed terribly well and terribly bad and recently terribly well, but this is another story.

Fact is that the countries share some economic interests and some loose political ideas which they find attractive - they are far far away from anything like NATO or a solid net of alliances.

OPSSG layed already out the military difficulties the PRC faces in an outright invasion of the ROC and seemingly resulting strong focus on antiaccess when dealing with a strong military ally of the ROC. I just want to add that the PRC could be in such an event also be easily subject to a wide array of highly effective options.